Very Low Charisma Characters

[Scorponok]

I had this in one of my groups once. This one fellow, who many considered a "problem player", decided to play a half orc with a charisma of 8. Our group had decided that 8 was the minimum we could go when point buying. With racial adjustments, the guy ended up with a CHA of 6.

He was cooperative with the group half the time, but half the other time, he would use his low charisma as an excuse for his antisocial behavior and to act like an ass. We eventually booted him for making threats to the other players but to this day, I wonder whether his play style was the result of he himself not having a high charisma. I've also had a special needs guy (is that the correct term nowadays?) want to join our table at the FLGS and I wanted to be as inclusive as possible so I let him. Someone else there made him a high intelligence, high wisdom wizard. Needless to say, he couldn't play him properly and did things in game no wizard would do.

As for the low charisma fellow, I was never sure how to deal with this. They are playing their character correctly, and if I were a player, my character would tell his character he was out of the party for his antisocial behavior. (And the player would have to roll a new character who was more cooperative with the group.)

Is it better just to tell the players you can't be a low charisma character? Do you just ignore that stat unless it comes to rolls for diplomacy/intimidate?

[ManicOppressive]

No, his behavior was the result of him being a douche-canoe.

Low charisma doesn't make someone a bad person, it just means they're less immediately likeable. A character with extremely low charisma is likely to be gruff, or possibly incredibly annoying. They might be extremely ugly, or just completely unwilling to talk with other people about mutual problems.

Anti-social behavior like threatening teammates or impeding the mission is a factor of player dickishness and, in some cases, character alignment. Charisma is about appearances and impressions--the layer you show the world, not the quality of your person.

Having said all of that, I find that when players specifically want to have any mental stat be incredibly low, they're usually looking for an excuse to abuse the game and act like an idiot, so I usually pull them aside before the campaign and have a "polite discussion" about how their super-low mental stat should probably not be that low.

[Peat]

I don't think I can put it better than Manic Oppressive did.

[Platymus Pus]

Well, If you had an int of 18 in real life could you properly convey an int of 6 or 8 in the game?

[Ashtagon]

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that D&D is not for everyone. D&D is, at its heart, a social game. That means if a person has personality or mental health issues that make playing the game impractical, you should not feel bad about not inviting that person into the game, any more than you would feel it unfair not to invite a wheelchair user on to the athletics team.

[Scorponok]

Well, If you had an int of 18 in real life could you properly convey an int of 6 or 8 in the game?

They probably could. I'm guessing it'd be easier for that to happen than someone with an int of 6 to convey an int of 18 in-game.

[elonin]

I agree. Being antisocial (especially anti group) isn't a low charisma issue. It's a problem player issue.

On the other hand I wouldn't offer any intelligence tests for players to play wizards or other high wis/int based characters. What sort of test would you offer for someone who plays a character of 20+ intelligence. The comment about doing things no wizard would do bothers me. I'm sure there are memes about highly smart people who portray themselves as bumbling exist. Or would you prefer to ban clumsy people from playing dexterous etc.

[martixy]

So we know Charisma is a measure of the sense of self and a person's ability to distinguish himself from others.
A.k.a. empathy.

So not caring about others feelings, emotions and condition is a manifestation of that lack of empathy.
I'd describe that as fitting the term "anti-social" right on the head.

Couple that with the inability to plan or reason about the consequences of your actions(a.k.a. low intelligence and/or wisdom) and you get exactly what you're describing - an impulsive, dickish character.

However even those characters would only do something if they expect some benefit for themselves(kind of like a wild animal really).

Being completely random is just being a moron.

So the question is, if it's a case of not caring or malice on part of the player.

[Platymus Pus]

They probably could. I'm guessing it'd be easier for that to happen than someone with an int of 6 to convey an int of 18 in-game.

And I'm sure he'd get "wow you're a real ****" glances just as well.

[ZamielVanWeber]

I agree. Being antisocial (especially anti group) isn't a low charisma issue. It's a problem player issue.

A character can be anti-social or a loaner (and I would argue that these are perfectly acceptable portrayals of low charisma, since they are not making their presence felt) but that should not extend to the player.

[Hal0Badger]

Charisma, for my understanding, is by no means "how you look" or "how handsome and social you are". Of course it helps to be a social character, because it means you have natural ability for these kinds of things. If a high charisma person speaks at a table, it is hard to ignore him. However Charisma is much more. Charisma is the inner strength of a character. It allows a person to be more than what just he is. It is the high charisma character who enters a king's court, shouts "Stop this madness at once!", and do not instantly get decapitated.

A dragon does not have a high charisma because it is handsome, it has a high charisma because their natural inner strenght is magnificent. You can find equally good looking and large creatures as dragons, but they may lack the inner strenght. They would be called big dangerous monsters at best, where as a dragon would be a paragon of creation, or even revered as a god by lesser beings.

That's why Charisma is a casting stat for some classes. Not because they are beautiful or sociable, but they rely on the inner strength of their character.

This is how I view charisma stat. That being said, your player just uses it as an excuse. You can full your rank of diplomacy, bluff or similar social skills, even with -6 charisma, and surpass a naturally talented but not trained person at level 5-6. Heck, you may have 6 charisma, no social skills, yet still hit on the barmaid at the inn.

[tadkins]

On the other hand I wouldn't offer any intelligence tests for players to play wizards or other high wis/int based characters. What sort of test would you offer for someone who plays a character of 20+ intelligence. The comment about doing things no wizard would do bothers me. I'm sure there are memes about highly smart people who portray themselves as bumbling exist. Or would you prefer to ban clumsy people from playing dexterous etc.

I feel the same way and it's something I've thought about at times.

I like wizards and just magic in general. I try to play them whenever possible. Most Wizards start off with 18+ INT though, which I've seen described as "Stephen Hawking" level.

I'm not Stephen Hawking, though. Hell, I dropped out of Algebra 2 my senior year in high school because it was something I simply found impossible to grasp. Lots of intelligence challenges and logic puzzles end up giving me pause. Does this mean I shouldn't be playing wizards, since I can't properly portray the sharp minds they're typically known for?

[Dusk Raven]

Charisma, as I understand it, is force of personality. A person with low Charisma isn't necessarily antisocial, he's just bland. He's a flat character, at least as far as other people are concerned. He's just not interesting, and doesn't stand out in terms of personality.

As for low INT, I too found issue with the "things no Wizard would do." People forget, in real life intelligence isn't a single number, it's a whole list of numbers that can very wildly. I've heard tales of very smart people doing very dumb things,* and a lot of times very "intelligent" people can be deficient in other areas. This is especially true of savants, who can be amazing in one area, and deficient in literally everything else.

In response to the new post above, I don't believe 18 INT is that high, not unless 1 in 36 people (and more than that as far as adventurers go) are as smart as Stephen Hawking. I'd have to refresh my knowledge of statistics to find out what IQ that is - I mean, it's still 98th percentile - but it's not that spectacular.

One of my teachers had an anecdote about talking to a scientist who'd actually worked on the Manhatten Project. Very smart person, but one day, the scientist recalled, he was driving during a windy day, and the hood of his car came off, tumbled about a hundred feet behind him, and then went still. So, he stopped, got out, and had to walk to it and carry it back in the wind. My teacher said, "Why didn't you just back the car up to the hood?" And the scientist looked stunned, and pondered. "You know, I didn't think of that."

[Âmesang]

Not sure if that anecdote displays a brief lack of Intelligence or a lack of Wisdom; granted, I've always considered myself to have poor Wisdom, so perhaps I really can't tell. :smallbiggrin:

As for the "1-in-36" part, well… I'm wondering what's the percentile of people who can also lift 300 lb. over their heads? I keep trying to ingrain into my fellow players' minds that 18 is really, really good… like the best-of-the-best among ordinary, non-legendary people (or at least very close!)… so they shouldn't feel bad if they only rolled a 14 in stat ("that's useless!"). :smalltongue:

[Peat]

Charisma, for my understanding, is by no means "how you look" or "how handsome and social you are". Of course it helps to be a social character, because it means you have natural ability for these kinds of things. If a high charisma person speaks at a table, it is hard to ignore him. However Charisma is much more. Charisma is the inner strength of a character. It allows a person to be more than what just he is. It is the high charisma character who enters a king's court, shouts "Stop this madness at once!", and do not instantly get decapitated.

A dragon does not have a high charisma because it is handsome, it has a high charisma because their natural inner strenght is magnificent. You can find equally good looking and large creatures as dragons, but they may lack the inner strenght. They would be called big dangerous monsters at best, where as a dragon would be a paragon of creation, or even revered as a god by lesser beings.

That's why Charisma is a casting stat for some classes. Not because they are beautiful or sociable, but they rely on the inner strength of their character.


Slight tangent - I agree with this depiction of Charisma and have sometimes wondered why the Will save keys off of WIS and not CHA.

[P.F.]

The section in the Player's Handbook on mental ability scores describes various types of characters with low Charisma: reserved, gruff, rude, fawning, nondescript, reclusive, uncouth, or unsophisticated. However, a character with low Charisma can also be the "power behiond the throne," and, conversely, a character with a high Charisma can still be shallow and unaware of others' feelings. Notably absent, however, are terms such as hot-tempered, vicious, arbitrarily violent, ruthless, and brutal. These terms are reserved for describing a chaotic evil character, not a socially inept one.

In a recent game one of my friends played his low-Charisma character as bawdy and tactless. He was also loud, obnoxious, and impossible to muzzle, so any delicate negotiations had to be done in his absence. Sometimes, however, it was useful to have him cut through BS and offend people to get results. While my highly charismatic character could do the same thing, he could save me the trouble of personal animosity.

[Âmesang]

Slight tangent - I agree with this depiction of Charisma and have sometimes wondered why the Will save keys off of WIS and not CHA.

…and, conversely, a character with a high Charisma can still be shallow and unaware of others' feelings.
That's kind of what I find funny about my sorceress, Quintessa. She possesses a naturally high Charisma and yet is cursed with below-average Wisdom, so while she has a way with words and a luxurious charm she's also quite vain, conceited, shallow, self-centered, condescending, proud… thinking her plans (stemming from her keen Intellect) are best, caring little for the thoughts and feelings of others (unless she can twist them to get what she wants), is utterly lost in her own, little world…

…and yet, due to being a sorceress/archmage, is blessed with tremendous Will (I actually plan on going a 16/4 path with her, effectively giving her +10 BaB, +6 Fort, +6 Ref, and +14 Will — like a free Iron Will feat!).

Trying to think it over, maybe Will is Wisdom-based in the same way that divine magic is Wisdom based (usually): you have to have a strong awareness of the world around you, have a strong belief in something… whether it be the divine, nature, or yourself.

[AMFV]

They probably could. I'm guessing it'd be easier for that to happen than someone with an int of 6 to convey an int of 18 in-game.

I don't think so, at least not necessarily. Many people argue that to be the case. But my experience has been that even when I create dumb as bricks characters I wind up coming up with courses of action that don't suite dumb as bricks characters. It is very difficult for me to act that way. My solution was just to not let my characters have super low mental stats (since that's not fun for me anyways, for the reasons I described)

The same holds true for Charisma. Somebody who is naturally charming and likeable, isn't going to be able to act "not charming and likeable" they wouldn't even know how to begin to do that.

Therefore it's probably better to use the stats as a modifier on outcomes in the game world. If a bright player comes up a cunning plan, but their character is stupid, have some glaring flaw appear in it, that they might have noticed but that their character would not. If the charming player is incredibly charming, then have his character less well recieved than he.

[Ursus Spelaeus]

I don't think so, at least not necessarily. Many people argue that to be the case. But my experience has been that even when I create dumb as bricks characters I wind up coming up with courses of action that don't suite dumb as bricks characters. It is very difficult for me to act that way. My solution was just to not let my characters have super low mental stats (since that's not fun for me anyways, for the reasons I described)


I have some advice for that.
Try playing your low-intelligence characters as Inspector Clouseau types; as inept and incompetent fools who nevertheless manage to stumble onto the right track by "complete luck".
Hell, at the very least you can play your low-intelligence characters as Hodor types; one-word vocabulary, but still intelligent enough to function as an adventurer.

But whatever you do, do not play your low intelligence characters as terminally-stupid lemmings like so many players I've seen.

[AMFV]

I have some advice for that.
Try playing your low-intelligence characters as Inspector Clouseau types; as inept and incompetent fools who nevertheless manage to stumble onto the right track by "complete luck".
Hell, at the very least you can play your low-intelligence characters as Hodor types; one-word vocabulary, but still intelligent enough to function as an adventurer.

But whatever you do, do not play your low intelligence characters as terminally-stupid lemmings like so many players I've seen.

I don't really want to learn how to play low INT characters better, I've explained why it's anathema to me. Even if I could prevent myself from coming up with ideas, it would rob me of a lot of enjoyment, so I choose not to do that.

[Ursus Spelaeus]

I don't really want to learn how to play low INT characters better, I've explained why it's anathema to me. Even if I could prevent myself from coming up with ideas, it would rob me of a lot of enjoyment, so I choose not to do that.


Fair enough.
I'm just suggesting it as an analogy for how one might play a low charisma character.
A low charisma character shouldn't force the player to shun all social interaction or actively sabotage the party. And even high charisma characters can be played rather unconventionally.
Consider the character James McGill from the show Better Call Saul. What would you say is his charisma score?

[tadkins]

CHA seems like a pretty hard stat to pin down.

Take this character for example (please don't hate me for making this reference. xD)

http://images4.fanpop.com/image/photos/20500000/Fluttershy-my-little-pony-friendship-is-magic-20524085-570-402.jpg

Her actions and attitude seem to fluctuate wildly between both sides of the CHA spectrum.

Low CHA: Social awkwardness, inability to make herself heard in a crowd.
High CHA: Insanely good Handle Animal checks, ability to put people in their place with but a stare through sheer willpower.

I wouldn't be sure what kind of CHA score to assign in this case. It's a tough stat to define.

[Âmesang]

Well, Handle Animal and Intimidate (I assume that's what you meant by the glare?) are skills, so one can have low Charisma and still be well trained in either of them… whilst lacking in Diplomacy, no?

Thinking about the low-Intelligence yet occasionally brilliant plan character reminded me of Son Goku from Dragon Ball: a brilliant strategist on the field of battle, but a bit dim and socially inept elsewhere; not so much an absentminded type, but definitely focused on only a single thing: fighting. :smalltongue: Much to the chagrin of his family and friends.

Of course when you grow up alone in the woods I guess I can't really blame him too much…

[tadkins]

Well, Handle Animal and Intimidate (I assume that's what you meant by the glare?) are skills, so one can have low Charisma and still be well trained in either of them… whilst lacking in Diplomacy, no?



Generally that's true but they always struck me as more innate qualities. I don't think they were actively trained for.

[ManicOppressive]

I would say (based on the limited understanding of the show I got from when a brony friend had me watch some) that Fluttershy would have a pretty high charisma.

Sure, she might not be able to make herself loud, and she's shy, but at the same time there really aren't any characters who DON'T like her immediately. She's a constant voice of reason, and as mentioned, she appears to have Handle Animal and Intimidate as class skills.

I mean, in the same way a character with extremely high strength can have a broken arm, a character with high charisma can have a social flaw. None of the attributes are ACTUALLY single traits, they're all just sort of an aggregate of the things that make them up.

Someone with high Strength in general can have a weak knee or a disabled limb while still being able to bench 400.

Someone with high Constitution in general can be susceptible to sickness while still being able to run for twenty miles.

Someone with high Dexterity in general can have... Well, Dex may be the hard one here, since it kind of IS a single trait. But hey, someone with insanely good hand-eye coordination can have a missing toe that impedes balance.

Someone with high Intelligence in general can have extremely poor decision-making abilities while still being insanely good at mental calculation.

Someone with high Wisdom in general can be completely ignorant of a broad subject while still knowing a lot about many others.

Charisma is hardly unique in being a little difficult to pin down at times.

[Hal0Badger]

Slight tangent - I agree with this depiction of Charisma and have sometimes wondered why the Will save keys off of WIS and not CHA.

I always thought as, Wisdom effect will saves because you require a clear mind and, well wisdom, to go against the tempting demons or fears in your head.

A high charisma-low wisdom person could easily be fooled by devils, because he follow his passions, and possibly dragging other people around him as well. To add that, his nightmares are much darker than a regular (normal-low charisma) person, so his inner strength, without serenity, cannot protect him against his nightmares.

I would admit, line between will save and Charisma is kind of blurry for some type of characters, but the line becomes more clear when you take in consideration an ambitious king who leads his people into conquest wars and a eastern monk, who tried to reach nirvana for all his life. King would do anything to succeed in conquests, though monk would be wary of the tempting offers of a devil.

[Esprit15]

In response to the new post above, I don't believe 18 INT is that high, not unless 1 in 36 people (and more than that as far as adventurers go) are as smart as Stephen Hawking. I'd have to refresh my knowledge of statistics to find out what IQ that is - I mean, it's still 98th percentile - but it's not that spectacular.

Otherwise good post, but my inner nitpick is coming out: an 18 on 3d6 is a 1/216, not a 1/36, which puts an 18 at the upper half of the 99th percentile.

[Jeff the Green]

Otherwise good post, but my inner nitpick is coming out: an 18 on 3d6 is a 1/216, not a 1/36, which puts an 18 at the upper half of the 99th percentile.

Which makes it equivalent to a 138.

To get to IQ it's easier to compare means and standard deviations. The standard deviation of 3d6 is about 3, and IQ is 15 (by definition). The mean of 3d6 is 10.5, and the mean of IQ is 100 (also by definition). Thus IQ = (INT - 10.5) * 5 + 100.

I think percentile's easier to think about, though. Assuming you know 200 people (which is probably the upper limit of the number of people you know reasonably well), one has an Int of 18 or higher. One also has an 18 or higher in each of the other stats. At my college of 1400 people, 7 have Int of 18 or higher.

[Dusk Raven]

Take this character for example (please don't hate me for making this reference. xD)

http://images4.fanpop.com/image/photos/20500000/Fluttershy-my-little-pony-friendship-is-magic-20524085-570-402.jpg

She's an interesting example, because she actually does have very powerful force of personality, it's just she's too shy to use it most of the time. When she gets passionate about something? The force of her personality and willpower can move mountains (or intimidate colossal dragons!). She's not even bad at Diplomacy, the problem is that there are various psychological barriers that keep her from using it most of the time.


Otherwise good post, but my inner nitpick is coming out: an 18 on 3d6 is a 1/216, not a 1/36, which puts an 18 at the upper half of the 99th percentile.

Oh. Well, I'm wrong then. XP


Which makes it equivalent to a 138.

To get to IQ it's easier to compare means and standard deviations. The standard deviation of 3d6 is about 3, and IQ is 15 (by definition). The mean of 3d6 is 10.5, and the mean of IQ is 100 (also by definition). Thus IQ = (INT - 10.5) * 5 + 100.

I think percentile's easier to think about, though. Assuming you know 200 people (which is probably the upper limit of the number of people you know reasonably well), one has an Int of 18 or higher. One also has an 18 or higher in each of the other stats. At my college of 1400 people, 7 have Int of 18 or higher.

Couple of things - that same example would also indicate 7 have an INT of 3 at your college, which doesn't seem likely for a college. While I think our system of education tests study skills as much as if not more than intelligence, you do need some measure of it to get into college. Related to this, adventurers also have stats skewed towards the higher end, because of their method of dice rolling. Unfortunately, I don't know how to calculate that - getting 4 random numbers and taking away the lowest one isn't exactly something we covered in statistics. I love probability mathematics, but I'm not very good at them.

Meanwhile, I like the IQ calculation. While my opinion is that IQ tests don't mean much, it does provide a nice idea of how far down the scale a 3 INT is. It also confirms my belief that INT isn't a linear scale, that 2 INT isn't 1/5th the intelligence of an average human, because if it were most animals would certainly have more than 2 INT. It also puts to rest the idea that IQ = INT * 10, because not only would a 30 IQ Half-Orc be statistically impossible (or really ludicrous), he also wouldn't be capable of functioning as an adventurer.

[Platymus Pus]

Which makes it equivalent to a 138.

To get to IQ it's easier to compare means and standard deviations. The standard deviation of 3d6 is about 3, and IQ is 15 (by definition). The mean of 3d6 is 10.5, and the mean of IQ is 100 (also by definition). Thus IQ = (INT - 10.5) * 5 + 100.

I think percentile's easier to think about, though. Assuming you know 200 people (which is probably the upper limit of the number of people you know reasonably well), one has an Int of 18 or higher. One also has an 18 or higher in each of the other stats. At my college of 1400 people, 7 have Int of 18 or higher.

Higher, adventurer's aren't the norm. It's more likely 158-178.
You're a famous person in int basically if it's 18. Especially if you're a wizard or something of the sort.

[ManicOppressive]

Adventurers are higher than the norm, but that's irrelevant because 10 is explicitly "average human ability." Adventurers being higher in ability than normal people isn't reflected in what their stats mean, it's reflected in the fact that all of their stats (or all but one) are likely significantly above 10. And adventurer with 12s in every attribute is a pretty mediocre adventurer, but is better at everything than an average person.

[Peat]

I always thought as, Wisdom effect will saves because you require a clear mind and, well wisdom, to go against the tempting demons or fears in your head.

A high charisma-low wisdom person could easily be fooled by devils, because he follow his passions, and possibly dragging other people around him as well. To add that, his nightmares are much darker than a regular (normal-low charisma) person, so his inner strength, without serenity, cannot protect him against his nightmares.

I would admit, line between will save and Charisma is kind of blurry for some type of characters, but the line becomes more clear when you take in consideration an ambitious king who leads his people into conquest wars and a eastern monk, who tried to reach nirvana for all his life. King would do anything to succeed in conquests, though monk would be wary of the tempting offers of a devil.

Thanks - that all makes sense to me now - although I'd argue Will is a misleading name if its less about resisting, and more about discernment :smalltongue:

[Platymus Pus]

Adventurers are higher than the norm, but that's irrelevant because 10 is explicitly "average human ability." Adventurers being higher in ability than normal people isn't reflected in what their stats mean, it's reflected in the fact that all of their stats (or all but one) are likely significantly above 10. And adventurer with 12s in every attribute is a pretty mediocre adventurer, but is better at everything than an average person.
If you have 12s in every stat you're an accomplished above average commoner, not an adventurer. Maybe you'll give birth to someone who will be.
Most commoners are too poor to have 10 stats, they don't eat well enough.
Average person would have d4 hp for hit dice and can be murdered by housecats.:smalltongue:

[P.F.]

To get to IQ it's easier to compare means and standard deviations. The standard deviation of 3d6 is about 3, and IQ is 15 (by definition). The mean of 3d6 is 10.5, and the mean of IQ is 100 (also by definition). Thus IQ = (INT - 10.5) * 5 + 100.

So an adult character with a 3 Intelligence has an IQ of about 60, approximately equivalent to the functioning capacity of an average eight-year-old. Although of course an average eight-year-old would have an IQ of 100, for an eight-year-old.


I think percentile's easier to think about, though. Assuming you know 200 people (which is probably the upper limit of the number of people you know reasonably well), one has an Int of 18 or higher. One also has an 18 or higher in each of the other stats. At my college of 1400 people, 7 have Int of 18 or higher.

To be fair, an institute of higher education is probably not a representative sample of the general population. But assuming a normal distribution, this puts the frequency of high intelligence into good perspective.

Extrapolating a little bit, we could also presume that the third standard deviation, an Intelligence of 19, would be equivalent to an IQ if 150, of whom 1 in 2000. As the numbers get higher, the frequency falls off sharply: An Intelligence score of 28, the lowest score which grants a bonus 9th-level spell, is equivalent to an IQ of 187, the frequency of which in the general population is about 1 in 300 million.

[Jeff the Green]

Higher, adventurer's aren't the norm.

That's why they get 4d6b3, not 3d6. NPCs who are individuals (i.e. that exist for reasons other than to be slaughtered in random encounters) get the non-elite (for NPC classes) or elite array (for PC classes) (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/improvingMonsters.htm#abilityScoreArrays), which aren't all that different from 3d6 (elite is a bit better; non-elite a tiny bit less swingy).

Besides, I have a hard time imagining more intelligent people are going to be more likely to adventure than the less intelligent, less intelligent people are more likely to adventure than the more intelligent, or that the very intelligent and the very stupid are more likely to adventure than the ones in the middle, so we should expect adventurers to be drawn from the same population as non-adventurers.


It's more likely 158-178.
You're a famous person in int basically if it's 18. Especially if you're a wizard or something of the sort.

That's still one in 20,000 to one in 100,000. I live in a rather unremarkable small city, meaning we have between 1 and 8 people that smart (well, probably more, given our status as the capitol city and college town with lots of lawyers and a good number of professors). I can virtually guarantee you've never heard of any of them. I probably haven't heard of more than one or two, and I went to that college and have lived here most of my life.


If you have 12s in every stat you're an accomplished above average commoner, not an adventurer. Maybe you'll give birth to someone who will be.

I doubt that, actually. Sure, you're better than average in everything, but just about everybody has a (slightly) higher score in at least one stat than you have in any. You're a decent who's also better at everything not related to your profession than your colleagues (i.e. if you're a professional singer, you can run faster, lift more weight, give better advice, and do more advanced math than most other singers), but you're worse at your profession than many of them.

And it's entirely possible to adventure with solid 12s. Casters can manage just fine, and warlocks laugh in the face of low stats.


So an adult character with a 3 Intelligence has an IQ of about 60, approximately equivalent to the functioning capacity of an average eight-year-old. Although of course an [B]average eight-year-old would have an IQ of 100, for an eight-year-old.

We don't really use mental age any more, but someone with an IQ of 60 would generally be considered to have mild intellectual disability. They'd likely be able to read, write, and do math to about a 3rd-to-6th grade level and could probably hold a job and live independently. Also, since sapient creatures (like humanoids) can't go below Int 3, that covers everything below an IQ of 62.5 (i.e. basically everyone with intellectual disability). Anyone with Int ≥5 would be considered not to have intellectual disability, though they might be considered "stupid" or "slow".

(And, of course, IQ doesn't map perfectly to Int, and kind of sucks as a measurement anyway, but it's a good rough guide in this case. Probably more so than at the high end, actually.)

[Ashtagon]

CHA seems like a pretty hard stat to pin down.

Take this character for example (please don't hate me for making this reference. xD)

http://images4.fanpop.com/image/photos/20500000/Fluttershy-my-little-pony-friendship-is-magic-20524085-570-402.jpg

Her actions and attitude seem to fluctuate wildly between both sides of the CHA spectrum.

Low CHA: Social awkwardness, inability to make herself heard in a crowd.
High CHA: Insanely good Handle Animal checks, ability to put people in their place with but a stare through sheer willpower.

I wouldn't be sure what kind of CHA score to assign in this case. It's a tough stat to define.

High Charisma. Just because she uses it reluctantly, doesn't mean it's low. She's basically the charisma counterpoint to the folk tale character the Gentle Giant (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/GentleGiant). Such gianst might be insanely strong, but most of the time use very little of that strength unless and until it's called for.

[Platymus Pus]

That's still one in 20,000 to one in 100,000. I live in a rather unremarkable small city, meaning we have between 1 and 8 people that smart
Applying modern percentages to dnd doesn't really work as it's more the middle ages, the population is much less educated and smaller.
Your city isn't theirs, we have percentages from the dmg already.


The basic unit of this city construction system is the district. A district is roughly equivalent to a modern city block or a small neighborhood. On average, a district represents about 500 people, though some districts (such as tenements) have a higher population density than others (such as noble estates). Because a district is so large, this system is unsuitable for use with smaller settlements. A district has its own population number, gp limit, assets, important NPCs, and character, or “feel.” It’s much easier for both the Dungeon Master and the players to think about a metropolis made up of eighty districts than to contemplate a teeming population of 39,761 individuals. The city structure becomes even easier to deal with if you assume that wards or neighborhoods are just clusters of identical districts. Thus, a metropolis might have a dozen wards: waterfront, noble’s villas, shantytowns, merchant’s quarter, temple quarter, and so on. As a starting point, use twenty districts for a small city, forty for a large city, and eighty for a metropolis. If you need to, you can always add more districts, but the total population number you get by doing that may bump your city up a size category. Types of districts are given on Table 1–1: District Types.




Besides, I have a hard time imagining more intelligent people are going to be more likely to adventure than the less intelligent, less intelligent people are more likely to adventure than the more intelligent, or that the very intelligent and the very stupid are more likely to adventure than the ones in the middle.
That happens is real life. Certain people float to certain kinds of jobs. Give college statistics a look.